You can get a swab DNA test from at least one major genealogy site that I know of and go from there. I can't see members of royal families putting their genetic material into a database, but you could possibly find some matches with people who have some sort of royal connection further back than the time period you're interested in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Fraser

hi,I'm new here so please forgive me if if this is out of place,but I was wondering if you can test your dna against royal dna to see if your related.

Well sure somewhere along the line I would have a claim. I can trace my family tree from my dad, through his mother (Lorna) and then through plenty of princes, princesses, lords etc, until we get to William De Meschines, Richard I of Normandy, and then Charlamagne (Charles the Great) Holy Roman Emperor. So im a direct descendant of Charlamagne and also the First King of England. My tree is pretty interesting to read and "freaked" my dad out when i finalised it after 2 years research. The only reason why we have no entitlement now is due to "law or Peerage". But if they were desperate, guess that would be the case. A direct relative descendant was also on the first Order of the Garter aswell as signing of the Magna carter.

I am distantly related to most royal houses in Europe, including the British Throne. But I am not in line for any throne

Then you must be distantly related indeed, as there are hundreds of possible claimants to the British throne. If you're not one of those, either your relation to the British royal family must go further back than Sophia of Hannover, who lived three hundred years ago, or your ancestor became a Catholic, married a Catholic or was born out of wedlock.

Prince Phillip participated in a DNA study so as to ascertain the identity of the two bodies found near the Romanoff killing site (there was a match). So some of his royal DNA is known (and in the medical and anthropological journals, particularly in Russian, there's quite a bit of information). He is mtDNA H, for example. And the subtype of his H has been published. Some ancient kings of Denmark have been typed, too - and there will probably be more and more of that kind of thing...

I miss out on being anywhere in line for the Hanoverian throne of England. But, I am still on board for an overthrow of the Hanoverians for a Plantagenet - that man in Australia who is the proper eldest male lineal relative of...was it Edward Plantagenet-York?

Question, if the current queen is my 53rd cousin, do you have any idea what my place is in the line of succession?

If you are not a direct descendent of the Electress Sophia of Hannover from a legitimate child then you have no place in the line of succession. The Queen has first cousins (through her mother) who have no place in the line of succession, while Philip has first cousins through his mother that are in the line of succession.

There are many descendents of the Electress who aren't in the line of succession because they come from an illegitimate child e.g. all the descendents of William IV (who haven't subsequently made a marriage to a legitimate descendent).

The Act of Settlement restricted claimants to those who are descendents of Sophia so that is the first criteria. If you are such a descendent, but not a descendent of Queen Victoria - it would be past 4000 as there are about 4000 direct descendents of QV.

that man in Australia who is the proper eldest male lineal relative of...was it Edward Plantagenet-York?

Not eligible - Parliament is supreme in the UK and Parliament passed a very specific piece of legislation that restricted the line of succession to the descendents of the Electress Sophia of Hannover.

As for the man in Australia - he has no claim anyway as his claim is based on a fallacy - that Edward IV's father wasn't his father. Doesn't matter - in law if the father recognises the child as his the child is his and so Edward IV was legitimate and so his position was legitimate.

Somewhat OT, I know, but wasn't there a claim established that Edward IV wasn't legally married to Elizabeth Woodville because of a prior betrothal, thus making their children illegitimate? George and his descendants would then have been next in line, in theory.

Somewhat OT, I know, but wasn't there a claim established that Edward IV wasn't legally married to Elizabeth Woodville because of a prior betrothal, thus making their children illegitimate? George and his descendants would then have been next in line, in theory.

England's King Edward IV (VII) secretly married Lady Elizabeth Butler while his Chancellor, Lord Neville, was negotiating Edward;'s marriage to a daughter of the Duke of Burgundy. Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville was thus bigamous- and this was the legal argument used by Edward's brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to claim the English Crown. Edward's sons, Edward (V) and Richard, Duke of York, were thus disqualified by the English Council of State, and the Duke of Gloucester was crowned King Richard III. It is possible that Richard may have known of his brother's illegitimacy, and used the bigamous marriage story to mask the fact that King Edward and his children had no right to the English Throne by virtue of his own illegitimate birth. He looked very different from his brothers and was much taller.

The Stuart claim to the throne seems to go to the present Duke in Bavaria, HRH Franz. Franz has no children, so his heir is Max, his brother. Max had only daughters, and the eldest is Princess Sophie of Leichtenstein, who is a Serene Highness of Leichtenstein, but also a HRH of Bavaria. Her heir is her eldest son Jospeh Wenzel. These people, however, make no claim to the throne of England. It is the "Jacobites" who make the claim for them.

Prince Joseph Wenzel of Leichtenstein was the first Jacobite heir to be born in England since the last ruler of the House of Stuart there since the Hanovers took over.

Of course, Electress Sophie of Hanover also had Stuart lineage, but these Jacobites have it all figured out that the correct descent is to the present "King of England," Duke Franz in Bavaria.

I became interested in these wandering genes through my own genetic history, which I didn't find out about until about 16 years ago, when I was diagnosed with Porphyria, a disease quite a few royal people have had or even have today. I knew nothing at all about my Scots antecedents, since my parents thought discussion of such things was vulgar. But I became aware that my Scots grandma came from Dundee (she was my porphyria link) and I could not trace her back more than four generations, none of them royal or noble or even rich.
But then I traced back the family roots to the era in the 12th century when my ancestor Robert Pollock lived next door to Walter Fitzallen, and apparently was FitzAllen's aide in Shropshire and then in Renfrewshire. Fitzallen's descenants become the Royal Stewarts. The Stuarts are well known in later centuries for having the Porphyria gene, which is very rare (at least in so far as those officially diagnosed). I probably got the gene from a Stuart or more directly from one of the lowland Scots families who married Stuarts over the years, including Leslies, Hamiltons, Pollocks, Maxwells, and so forth.

So I have no direct descent of royalty, but boy do I have a bloodline descent of Porphyria, not something one would choose. The mystery to me is how the gene got down those years to me. I now know my dad had it, and his mother and sisters and probably a couple of cousins, but I can't look back through the years to see how it got to me.
Do people other than royals have it? Of course, most do not even try to trace royal lineage, but it seems to be a disease which sprang up through inbreeding, and I know some of my Scots ancestors were champs at that, such as the Maxwells, who married cousins every time one was available (and sometimes abandoned the female spouse after an heir was produced, very bad people to be related to). Maybe this bad behavior produced a curse? I hope not. I have prayed for the curse to leave in any case.

Yes the Stuart line is currently in Habsburg hands, but a direct descendant of the throne is able to appeal to the British Monarchy to allow them to have their titles back. Fitz is not a Scottish name, it Irish from Fitzgerald. There are two Stuart clans in Scotland. The first are the commoners, spelt S-t-e-w-a--r-t, or Stewart were a lower class clan and commonly mistaken for Royal Stuarts. ( Still are today. ) Lower class clan also used for butlers, servicemen, guilds men, and guards. Royals Stuarts , the second clan were unmistakable. Often had brilliantly red hair, long noses complimented by soft featured faces with cats eyes ( almond shaped eyes from earlier marriage with Fraser Clan). Men were usually around 6'0, women around 5'6-5'11 in height. In reality the only way you can tell is if you have had a DNA test. I have have had a DNA test for my maternal side , as well as created a family tree. ( found out I am a Royal O'conner/O'connor descendant from the County of Kerry, descended from Fraser Clan , Macdonald of Macdonld of the Isles and and Unnamed Royal Stuart in the 13-16 century). Now I am going to do my fathers side and see what comes up.

It was in Habsburg hands until 1919 and the death of Queen Maria Theresia of Bavaria, daughter of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Este. She had succeeded her paternal uncle, Duke Francesco V of Modena as "representative and heir of King Charles I of England" in 1875.

The Jacobite claim passed to her son Crown Prince Rupprecht, then to his son, the late Duke Albrecht and is now with Albrecht's son Franz, Duke of Bavaria.
Thus it currently rests with the House of Wittelsbach.

I am a direct descendent of King Edward III through his son John of Gaunt. However, genealogists claim that all Americans with English ancestry can claim descent from King Edward I so I suppose that negates any bragging rights. As others have mentioned, there is also that little law, the Act of Settlement to interfere with any royal aspirations I might entertain.

King Egbert of Wessex belonged to the Anglo-Saxon House of Wessex. He was a great King, so you can be proud of your ancestor.
However, you are not in the Line of Succession since only legitimate and non-Catholic descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover are.